FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FRUIT OF THE LOOM (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Hours of work.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the Company's proposal to change the working hours of the members employed in the knitting department. The knitting department was situated in Buncrana but in November, 2001, the Company announced the closure of the plant there and the consolidation of all operations in a site at Ballymacarry. The Company claims that this is for economic reasons. The main effect of the move would mean that the workers concerned would work 5 nights on night shift compared to the present rota of 4 nights Monday to Thursday plus 6 hours on Saturday morning (7.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.)
The dispute was referred to Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation
conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred
to the Labour Court on the 18th February, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28th March,
2003, in Donegal.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The hours of work in question have been established for many years and are a fundamental part of the workers' conditions and contracts. A change of the nature proposed would cause serious disruption to the workers' lifestyle.
2. Change in long-established patterns should be by mutual agreement. The Company has not produced evidence that the changes proposed are necessary.
3. The workers would be willing to re-consider their position if the Company was willing to share the alleged savings but this proposal has been rejected.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The textile and clothing sector has undergone radical change and restructuring in recent years, and the Company has had to downsize its operation as a result.
2. Clause 29 of the Company/Union agreement states that the Company reserves the right to vary hours of work in accordance with production requirements. The changes proposed will yield higher productivity and reduce costs. Absenteeism has been a major cost factor in regard to the Saturday morning shift.
3. The current system results in difficulties for the Company regarding administration, payroll, time and attendance systems.
RECOMMENDATION:
From the submissions made to the Court, it appears that the parties to this dispute are entrenched in their respective positions and that there is a complete absence of any common ground on which an agreement might be based. Against this background, the Court does not believe that any definitive recommendation which it could make at this time would advance the resolution of the dispute.
The Court notes that proposals were developed at conciliation which the parties were prepared to recommend for acceptance. Whilst these proposals were subsequently rejected by the Union, they are as near as the parties have come to finding a basis on which the changes sought by the Company could be agreed. The Court believes that the parties should now resume negotiations on the basis of these proposals, and should seek to identify what adjustments could be made to them so as to find acceptance amongst the employees affected by the proposed changes.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th April, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.